I have reviewed the links. Mostly nothing new. But it really depends on the point you are trying to make. If you are just saying it is not true that a beginner needs hundreds of grams of protein per day to make any gains, then these do support your case. However, I already agree with that point.

If that is the case, had you phrased the statement better, you probably would have gotten no argument at all. I would have thought "huh? I never heard that one...", but that's about it.

Now if you were trying to say anything else, the links don't really support anything else. But your knowledge of the scientific process makes me think you know that and were saying nothing more than 1 supported point. But here is what I thought.

The first one about the people with kidney disease is an untrained group, possibly atrophied, so they gain real easy. So it supports just the one point.

The second is one I am very familiar with. Just the untrained making some gains.

The milk one I am not sure what the deal is with that. It doesn't seem to add anything. We know the lactose will cause an insulin spike which is anabolic. Bodybuilders have been doing that since the beginning.

Now your statement about the calorie surplus being needed is VERY important. It is not that the calorie surplus is needed in a beginner, so much as it is needed in a beginner who is taking in lower amounts of protein. You can either take in lots of protein with a calorie/carb deficit and gain muscle and loose fat as a beginner. Or you can make do with less protein by just eating more. There was a paper posted about this in another thread. I can find it for you if you would like to see it. It is all about protein metabolism and is pretty interesting.

As for the fat question, the paper I mentioned does say the portion of fat or carbs didn't matter to the effect of sparing protein. Let me know if you want me to find it for you.

Now the last study is just about maintaining. The amount of muscle mass is a factor it doesn't address though. It seems to prove it's main point. However there does seem to be a preconceived desired result. This makes it a little questionable. The first paragraph sounds quite slanted. then the bit at the end where they reference "theoretical maximum" and hint at unproven safety issues, screams junk science. But the actual research does seem sound.

I tend to be extra skeptical of anything anti-protein. It's like the boy that cried wolf. You get tons and tons of BS from militant vegetarians and government backed crap that has been bought and paid for by the food industry. Same thing with claims about sweeteners or claims critical of evolution.

I think most people, not just weightlifters, would benefit from more protein than the food pyramid or whatever recommends. I tend to be alright on the lower end of 100, but generally I say I eat around 120g a day. Seems to be fine with me.

I think some of the more dumber myths that plagues average gymgoers is that isolation is the key to building muscle. Don't know if that's been touched on before, but I used to see guys curling all the time at the gym or doing front raises and not making much progress, even on their biceps or shoulders. It would seem to make sense logically if you think about it, that concentrating on individual muscles would produce greater results. Just doesn't carry over.

A diet myth- we can drink our fruits and veggies. This is advertised daily on television (ever seen those V8 commericals?). I don't see anything wrong with a moderate sized glass of OJ with your morning breakfast or whatever...but personally I don't equate fruit juice (or vegetable juice for that matter) as part of my fruit intake for the day.

Using Creatine is "using Steroids". This really pisses me off. I don't drink protein shakes or anything of the sort (don't have much against them but just don't really care for them) but I do take creatine and it's pretty helpful. I just don't want to have to eat 10 steaks a night, so I understand all about convenience. But whenever sees the creatine container and me mixing it they assume i'm on steroids.

And even to pick on weightlifters own myths...carbs aren't bad. They're about as bad as what the mainstream America (or wherever ur from) thinks of fats. But...just like they're are inherently bad fats (trans and the fast food oils, etc)...there are also inherently bad carbs. Just don't eat them and you'll generally be fine (white bread, sugars, etc.). I do just fine generally eating around 3 servings of whole grains/legumes, etc a day. I just make sure they aren't processed to death. Oh and not consume 11 servings of them either. Such as the old pyramid recommended.

Heavy with low reps actually seems to cause more hypertrophy in me than anything else.

Was just kind of skimming through this and thought I'd add in something I've been trying to read up more about:

The rep range for any kind of training actually has a lot more to do with your red/white (fast/slow) fibers than anything else.

Everyone has different percentage makeups and the makeup of each individual muscle actually varies in every person.

What this means, from what I've read, is that it's entirely possible that your quads could respond much better to low rep/heavy than med-high rep/lighter simply because it has more fast twitch fibers (as an example).

Then lets say your chest is more slow twitch fibers than your quads, so then you'd probably benefit more from higher rep ranges as they wouldn't be full used at a lower rep range.

Just some stuff I've been reading, not really sure if it's 100% accurate, but it seems like it's a fairly viable idea and makes sense when thinking why some people grow better in diff rep ranges.

Also, supposedly, you can get an idea of your fiber make up using 80% of your 1RM max. People with more slow fibers can supposedly rep out ~12-15 or more reps at this while people with more fast twitch can only get anywhere from 8 and less (generally speaking, of course).

I wonder if there is a typical change with training. For instance, is it just "person dependant" or is it perhaps also a function of the level of muscularity? Would be interesting to look at someone untrained, then after a 50%, 100%, 200% strength gain. And see if there is some change in the 80%RM number of reps performed.

I wonder if there is a typical change with training. For instance, is it just "person dependant" or is it perhaps also a function of the level of muscularity? Would be interesting to look at someone untrained, then after a 50%, 100%, 200% strength gain. And see if there is some change in the 80%RM number of reps performed.

if you glance down in the article stu posted, he lists a lot of factors that change it, and some of them are very much a product of training.

Quote:

Amount Of Rest Since Last WorkoutStrength-To-Weight RatioSkill Level At Exercise Being PerformedSize Of Muscle Being ExercisedHow close you are to your maximum potential in size or strength

I wonder if there is a typical change with training. For instance, is it just "person dependant" or is it perhaps also a function of the level of muscularity? Would be interesting to look at someone untrained, then after a 50%, 100%, 200% strength gain. And see if there is some change in the 80%RM number of reps performed.

if you glance down in the article stu posted, he lists a lot of factors that change it, and some of them are very much a product of training.

Quote:

Amount Of Rest Since Last WorkoutStrength-To-Weight RatioSkill Level At Exercise Being PerformedSize Of Muscle Being ExercisedHow close you are to your maximum potential in size or strength

I think Dr Squat is referring to the recovery needs. The ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch doesn't really change although they can take on the characteristics of each other. It's actually more like a continum of fast to slow. He talks about this more elsewhere on his site. Everything on his site is worth reading.

When you say of ideal protein intake of .8gm/kg of Bodyweight , do you mean the weight of the pure protein contained in the food or the weight of the food? Like 10gm of chicken contains x gm of protein, among other things. So do you recommend the weight in terms of chicken (or whatever source) or the pure protein the chicken contains?

It's the weight of the protein, not the meat. Typically most meat has about 20-25% protein. I just checked my pantry, a can of tuna is 25%, a can of ham is 15%.

.8gm/kg (RDA) is the amount normally recommended by "nutritional experts". It's enough to keep your muscles from wasting and avoiding protein deficiency diseases. In order to achieve optimal muscle growth, fat loss and health, you may need 2 or 3 times this amount. A good rule of thumb for active athletes is 1g/lb or 2.2g/Kg. This is usually more than enough.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum